Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 22556

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

These representations have been prepared and submitted by Lavata Group Limited, on behalf of DNA Investment Holdings Ltd (the “Client”) with regards to their development aspirations for the redevelopment of Mahal Buildings and the adjacent land on New Street in Walsall (the “Site”) to provide a new high quality residential development. They welcome the opportunity to make representations on the Draft Black Country Plan (DBCP), conscious that they are seeking to deliver residential development in a key location within the Town Centre of Walsall, one of the four Strategic Centres in the Black Country Plan.

We have undertaken a round of pre-application discussions with Walsall LPA, with regards to the development, and are in the process of receiving the formal written advice and then preparing a detailed planning application.

The Site as far as we are aware, has not been submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation which was undertaken, however these representations have been submitted to ensure that our aspirations for development in the Town Centre are made clear and where necessary the DBCP amended to ensure that it is an appropriate document to guide the development of the Black Country, as this will be the main Development Plan Document in order to determine planning applications.

The Site is not an allocated employment site and is in a state of disrepair. The surrounding environment is a mix of community services, residential and commercial, with different types of architectural design and heights.

The Site
The application Site comprises interlinked light industrial brick buildings which occupy a 0.412-hectare irregular plot to the south side of New Street at its culmination near Dudley Street. The Site occupies a raised hillside position, and the buildings follow the contours of the site, single storey to the east, two storey to the north-west and three stories to the south-west.

Immediately to the north of the Site is the Church Hill Conservation Area which dissects the northeast end of the site fronting the current buildings. Immediately opposite the site is a single private house previously the gardener’s house for the Geoffrey Jellicoe designed walled St Matthew’s Memorial Gardens that opened in 1952, within the conversion taking place in 1998. Beyond the garden is Grade II* Listed St Matthew’s Church and its grounds which occupy Church Hill and is on axis with the High Street.

To the east of the Site is a single storey building which is occupied by a children’s nursery which has its external play area on the New Street corner. Behind the nursery and the southeast corner of the Site, is Fieldgate Trading Estate. To the south are large industrial buildings set at a lower level of Bath Street. Bath House lies at a lower level to the west. This three storey building fronts Bath Street and has recently been converted under permitted development rights from office use to residential. To the north-west lies a steep tree lined bank and pedestrian access down to the Town Centre.

The Site has approximately 90% building coverage, there is a small overgrown area bordering Bath House with a large mature tree on the southern boundary and a carpark area to the northwest which lies within the Conservation Area. The Site itself is identified in the Walsall Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) (reference TC27) and has been considered for employment land release and with an estimated provision of 4,047sqm floorspace (Town Centre uses other than A1 or housing
development subject to being of a high-quality design). However as this is classed as a secondary site, its release was seen as a longer-term proposition. It should be noted that the AAP was actually started in 2013 and was adopted after examination in 2019, and the AAP replaced Appendix 2 of the of the BCCS (SC3); the AAP’s validity is to the end of the BCCS Plan Period which is 2030. In terms of the delivery of the Site, we are now halfway thought the BCCS Plan period, so the Site is no longer ‘secondary’ as there is now less than 9 years to deliver the site as part of the adopted AAP and BCCS.
Our client is seeking to re-use a brownfield site/previously developed land (PDL) in a sustainable urban location for a residential development of up to/circa 150 units (subject to further detailed capacity work and the submission of a detailed planning application). The principle of residential development in this location has already been approved and accepted by the approval of the previous outline planning permission in 2010 (reference 10/0729/OL) which did pre-date the adopted BCCS, the NPPF and AAP. It should be noted that they physical environment around the site has not changed since this application was approved.
These representations have been with regards to the ability for the site to deliver residential development in the Town Centre as well as the need for polices to be flexible enough to be able to be applied to individual site circumstances and constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 22557

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy CS1 – Development Strategy

We are in support of the DBCP’s position on the development strategy for the Black Country as overall
strategy focuses on residential development to the most accessible, sustainable locations including the defined Strategic Centre of Walsall. DNA Investment Holdings Ltd proposals to develop their Site fits in perfectly with the strategy to deliver housing in existing urban areas, with this development also regenerating an area of Walsall Town Centre which is currently underutilised and will offer new residential dwellings in an area of acute housing need. This Site will have its own challenges due to the proximity to the Grade II* Listed St Matthew’s Church and the Church Hill Conservation Area. Criterion (f) of Policy CS1 the strategy seeks to protect the ”… Black Country’s character and environmental assets including heritage assets…”, which would be applicable to the our interests, however as an overarching strategic element of the development strategy this as a principle is acceptable.
Further comments on housing, strategic centres and heritage are set out in the relevant sections of the Consultation Document.

Comment

Representation ID: 22558

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy CSP2 – The Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas

We are in agreement that the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas of each of the Local Authorities in the Black Country should be the focus of regeneration. The Client’s aspirations for the Site are in alignment with the aspirations of the Strategic Centres as set out in part 4 of the policy as the site will be able to provide much needed housing, built at a high density in the Walsall Town centre boundary. The site is seeking to provide only housing on the site due to the location outside of the
core commercial areas, but the policy itself makes it clear that not ALL development must be mixed use, just the majority. It is therefore recognised that not all development in the Strategic Centres is suitable for mixed use development subject to individual site locations/constraints. The Site also benefits from being within easy walking distance from Walsall Railway Station, the Bus Station as well as access to the Mayors Cycle scheme. The development of the Site also provides the opportunity for the existing green infrastructure surrounding the Grade II*Listed Church and the Walsall Memorial Gardens to be utilised more efficiently. It should be noted that the Memorial Gardens have been closed for a number of years, so members of the public who are aware its presence, have not been able to use these as they should. Development of our Site will allow an opportunity to look at options to open up the gardens again and create a critical mass of people/population who would be able to access and use the gardens on a daily basis.

To the south of the site lies Parkers Green Park, which is a steeply sloping green space. There are no play facilities on the site due to its gradient, however forms part of the open green spaces/infrastructure for this part of Walsall and the town centre. It is not clear how well this space is used by the public or local residents, but the addition of housing in this area will help with the provision and usage of the infrastructure.

It is unclear why the Site has not been bought forward as a housing allocation, given that it forms a secondary (now primary given the current BCCS is now halfway through its adopted time period) site for employment land release in the adopted Walsall Town Centre AAP. It is clear that the DBCP has not actually looked any sites in the adopted AAP to see whether they are still able to come forward.

This is a fundamental flaw in the DBCP as the NPPF is clear Green Belt release should be a last resort once there are no sites in the urban environment. There is no reference to when the AAP’s will be updated if at all and how these will fit in with the DBCP. This is incredibly important as the DBCP is relying on the AAPs to help deliver the level of housing sought in the Strategic Centres. The AAPs should be updated as part of the current DBCP in order for these to provide the details missing from the Local Plan and provide the local direction of growth including allocations for housing for the Strategic Centres, taking into account physical typography and constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 22559

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy CSP4 – Achieving well-designed places

We are supportive of the policy as a strategic policy for the Black Country. Building design is a very subject matter; what may be seen as high quality and good design may not be by others. The Governments direction on design with the introduction and need for Design Codes to help make the decision-making process clearer, less subjective and more consistent is clearly seeking to ensure that polices are left to personal/individual interpretation which can often restrict the delivery of all types of development.

However, this process is going to take time and development cannot be put on hold until Design Codes or their equivalent are introduced. The policy is a general one which mirrors the current policy in the adopted BCCS. The Black Country whilst a region which shares a number of physical and social characteristics, it is made up of a number of cities/towns which have their own unique identity. Building designs suitable to their location is a suitable option but cannot be one which is applied without taking into account the typography and shape of the land and the impact these major physical constraints can have on the design and viability of development.
High quality design will have impacts on the deliverability and viability of development. This needs to be balanced very carefully by the Black Country and their individual authorities when looking at efficient design, high quality materials and impacts on the historic environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 22560

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

We are in support of the delivery of at least 47,837 dwellings across the Black Country through housing allocations and existing planning permissions.
We note that Table 4 has no housing allocations on Occupied Employment Land in Walsall at all despite all other authorities having some allocations. Also, in Table 4 there are no additional supply/site capacity in the strategic centre of Walsall. It states that this additional capacity is to be allocated in Local Plans which we assume means the relevant AAPs (please refer to comments made on Policy CSP2).
The adopted Walsall Town Centre AAP is predicated on the existing BCCS and does not therefore provide the sound basis for securing housing growth in the period to 2039 – i.e. it does not align now with the new BCP plan period and will need to be updated.
The site has not been submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation period; however, it has also not been carried over as site for housing development despite it being allocated as suitable for employment land release in the Walsall Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) which is Appendix B of the current adopted BCCS. As set out above, it is not clear why this is the case, and whether Walsall attempted to revisit the sites in the AAP to check their status and ability to be carried forward.
We note that paragraph 6.6 of the Consultation Draft refers to the fact that the housing supply from allocations on occupied employment land has been discounted by 15% to take into account of the multiple delivery constraints that typically affect such sites and that are likely to reduce the delivery on a minority of sites. As a general approach, discounting can work but there is, in the case of major opportunities in town / strategic centres a realistic case to reduce the discount (especially as our Site already has an allocation for release via the AAP).
Paragraph 6.8 states that the Plan is not making or reviewing allocations within Strategic Centres, we assume as a result of the Urban Capacity Review 2021 conclusions about the ability of employment sites to come forward in the Plan Period. It goes on to say, “Existing allocations will be reviewed, and new allocations made in line with these targets when Local Plan documents covering Strategic Centres are updated, alongside or immediately following adoption of the BCP.” There is no clear route to update the AAP so no certainty as to if / when the allocation of housing land in Walsall Town Centre will be updated. The AAP will be out of sync with the new BCP potentially for many years (given how long it took to get the current AAP adopted).

This delay in updating the AAPs is not acceptable in light of the fact the DBCP is intending to release Green Belt land and the NPPF position concerning long-term review and release of GB through Local Plan process leading to long-term settled boundaries) and also asking other local authorities to accept their unmet housing and employment needs.
These representations have been made with regards in making it clear that the Site is available for housing development now, it can be allocated as part of the DBCP and the only constraints on the delivery of the Site will be the balanced placed on the level of impact on the historic environment verses the public benefits/good. Comments on draft Policy ENV5 are provide separately.

Comment

Representation ID: 22561

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

We are broadly supportive of Policy HOU2 with regards to housing types and densities being informed by their location, access to amenities as well as public transport access and choice. We welcome the increase in minimum net density for developments in a Strategic Centre or Town Centre of Very High – 100+ dwellings per hectare (dph) which is a significant increase of 65+ from Table 8 of the adopted BCCS. This clearly takes into account the conclusions made by the Urban Capacity Review 2021 which set out that the centres have an important role to play in accommodating future residential growth, particularly in creating more capacity and enhancing the rates of delivery. Given the importance of the Strategic Centres, Walsall should be systematically and proactively planning for it now via updated Town Centre AAP work which could show clearly how 100+ dph will be achieved across sites in the town centre (given some will be higher and some lower density).

We also note that part 4 of this policy caveats the minimum density requirements “…except where
this would prejudice the historic character and local distinctiveness as defined by Policy ENV5.” .
paragraph 6.16 states “Not all developments with good sustainable access to services will be suited to the highest densities – in some cases a lower density will be more appropriate, for example in areas of historic character, to reflect the density of adjacent uses or to meet the need for a mix of housing types.”. whilst this may be the case in some circumstances, it is certainly not the case for all sites. The policy does not take any account of footprints of existing sites or typography, which will dictate the level of density which can be provided, as well as heights.

Like much of the Black Country, Walsall Town Centre is not ‘flat’; there are significant changes in typography within relatively short distances. Our Site is elevated above the rest of the Town Centre, as is the Grade II* Listed Church. The existing building on site as a result of the elevation and the change in levels on the site itself, means that the re-use of the existing footprint and building ‘up’ in the only efficient option for development. As a result of this any development on the Site will have significantly higher densities than the current 100+ in the DBCP. Density calculations do not take into account typography and as a result can be a misleading quantitative marker for development if this is the only marker used.

We believe that the current wording of part 4 of the policy does not give sufficient flexibility for development on sites where they are physically constrained by typography/gradient of the land. Such inflexibility goes against the NPPF paragraph 16 (b) of plans to be “be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”. The policy wording should be amended to remove the word “except” and replaced with wording which is more flexible and allows the LPAs to have the ability to take into account physical constraints which are specific to sites (something which the review of the AAP could do). Wording could be as follows: “…(4) All developments of ten homes or more should achieve the minimum net density set out below. Where this would impact the historic character, or townscape and local distinctiveness as a result of physical layout or constraints, proposals should demonstrate the level of impact on these, as defined in Policy ENV5”.

The suggested working would still connect the need to meet minimum density requirements, and the requirements for proposals to take into account the matters listed in Policy ENV5 and have formed part of the design rationale, with robust evidence to allow LPAs to apply the policy flexibly.

Comment

Representation ID: 22562

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility

The provision of affordable housing as well as housing built for wheelchair users is critical for the Black Country to provide adequate homes for all. We support the requirement for different levels of affordable housing based on the values of the area in which development is located. It is wholly appropriate for those areas of low value to provide a lower amount, as well as brownfield sites with low to medium values to provide the same lower amount. We note that Figure 5 shows the location of the various value zones in the Black Country. The majority of the Black Country is low to medium value. Walsall has a mix of all three zones, which seem to be fairly evenly split. Viability has always been a challenge in the Black Country and the need to differentiate land values across such a large area is a welcomed move and demonstrates that this policy has been prepared positively and with deliverability of sites in mind. We also acknowledge that flexible arrangements will be sought, thought planning agreements (S106), wherever possible to allow for changing market conditions in the future, and agree this flexible approach is appropriate as this works when markets fall as well as rise.

We are also supportive of the need for wheelchair accessible units to be based on the viability of a development rather than a blanket requirement across the Black Country.

Comment

Representation ID: 22563

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy EMP4 - Other Employment Sites

We are in support of the policy with regards to ‘other employment sites and the ability for sites which are not identified as strategic or local employment areas to be used for housing development. Part 1 of the policy acknowledges the need for sites that may not be suitable for employment uses (initially by the fact they are not allocated/designed) to be changed for housing.
Part 2 of Policy EMP4 sets out the criteria for employment sites to be developed into housing, however the criteria itself would require subjective views on what is acceptable evidence or not, as well as requiring substantial work for developments.
Part (a) of the policy as drafted requires proposals to demonstrate that the site is no longer required for industrial employment including the possible relocation of displaced employment uses from other parts of the Back Country. This requirement does not read as reasonable in terms of requiring development to search across the Black Country to see if the need is required, how would this be done in a proportionate and effective way. The Black Country covers a very large geographical area, with each LPA having its own individual requirements for employment space. Non-designated employment sites are generally owned individually and are small scale in nature and fails to meet the BEAR assessment criteria. It is unlikely that a small-scale industrial employer who may be displaced from one unsuitable employment location would want to relocate to another one. It is also unreasonable to expect those who have a business base say in the north west of Wolverhampton on the boarder of Telford to want to relocate to the other side of the Black county say on the border near Birmingham.
Part (b) of the policy requires the submission of viability evidence to demonstrate such uses are not viable. It is not clear what ‘these uses’ refers to as part (a) make specific reference to industrial uses, although the policy as a whole refers to general employment uses. It is assumed that by ‘these uses’ they mean the exiting employment use of the site prior to any change of use.
The policy as written is not practical nor justified, and simply makes it more difficult for employment sites which do not provide the quality of space or type required to be changed into more appropriate or practical uses, especially in urban areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 22564

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy CEN2 – Tier One: Strategic Centres

Walsall Town Centre is a Tier One Centre for the purposes of the Development Strategy. We agree with the strategy of the policy to prioritise the Strategic Centres to serve the identified housing and employment needs for the Black Country, and in particular part (a) which seeks to maximise housing provision to increase and strengthen communities. Indicative housing capacity is identified in Chapter 13 Sub-Areas and Site Allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 22565

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy ENV5 – Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country

As set out in our comments on Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility, we agree that the historic environment should be protected, but that this needs to be appropriately balanced with other objectives of the DBCP in accordance with national policy. This policy seeks to restrict development which in the LPA’s opinion would negatively impact on the historical landscape.
The policy makes no reference to the need to balance impacts the historical environment with the ability to bring forward sites for housing within both urban and rural areas of the Black Country. As discussed in our previous comments, land values across the Black Country are generally low, and therefor the ability for brownfield sites to come forward has often been slow or non-existent without significant public funding/investment due to viability. Often the only way to increase the viability of sites on brownfield land has been to increase densities which then means increasing heights. Also, as we have set out, density and heights do not take into account typography of the land or any existing footprints. The NPPF is clear in this regard at paragraph 124 when dealing with achieving appropriate densities.
Respecting the historic character of the Black Country doesn’t simply mean re-creating the same types of development; new development of different densities and material pallets can improve the historic character by focusing views on monuments and buildings of historical interest.
It is inevitable, the Strategic Centres where development is on existing elevated sites or sites with steep gradients near historical sites/buildings may have have some sort of ‘impact’; however, the policy reads to say that any impact is negative by simply having an impact. The policy refers to the need for developments to preserve and enhance aspects of the historic environment and achieve a locally response design. Developments need to assess views into, from, to or within historic environments/buildings. This requirement is too general and doesn’t make it clear what the hierarchy of views are; for example, if there are no impacts on the principal views/elevations of listed buildings, then would this then be acceptable in principle. Or does the policy mean that even if one view is impacted then the development is unacceptable?
The justification of the policy also appears to be short given the policy itself is so detailed. Paragraph 10.83 states “To ensure that heritage assets make a positive contribution towards the wider economic, social and environmental regeneration of the Black Country, it is important that they are not considered in isolation but are conserved and enhanced within their wider context. A holistic approach to the built and natural environment maximises opportunities to improve the overall image and quality of life in the Black Country by ensuring that historic context informs planning decisions and provides opportunities to link with other environmental infrastructure initiatives.” . We agree that a holistic approach is needed, but it needs to be clearer what this approach includes, as well as actually being explicit in the policy wording itself. This does not mention the need to look at physical site constraints, viability, the public benefits a development could bring or even a reference to developments being of high quality.
Paragraph 10.82 states in the last sentence “Whilst a legislative framework supported by national guidance exists to provide for the protection of statutorily designated heritage assets the key challenge for the future is to manage change in a way that realises the regeneration potential of the proud local heritage and distinctive character of the Black Country.” Historical assets at a national and statutory level already benefit from a high level of protection, and Policy ENV5 should seek to be more precise with regards to what needs to be demonstrated to allow developments which do impact on the historical environment acceptable.
Overall Policy ENV5 as drafted is overly restrictive and allows no flexibility for high density development to come forward in Strategic Centres where there are many listed buildings as well as well as historical environments/character.
The Site is located near the Grade II*Listed St Matthew’s Church and also adjacent to the Church Hill Conservation Area and other listed and non-listed buildings and parks. The typography of the site means that any development which increases the floorspace will be visible from a few viewpoints from the southwest of Walsall, however the principal view of the church from St Matthew’s Quarter will not be impacted, due to the elevation of the church. It should also be clear that the immediate area around the church in the core Town Centre has changed significantly over the last 20 years and the access to the Church cut by the creation of a main road (Peal Street/Upper Rushall Street), which effectively from a visual point of view, cuts off the Church from the Town Centre.
As mentioned, the development of the Site would bring a number of public benefits; much needed housing on a poor quality employment site with limited access (brownfield), regeneration of an area within a Strategic Centre with excellent access to different modes of public transport, the ability to create more critical mass/population to bring back in use the closed memorial gardens, as well as the community centre associated with the church, and also to help the viability and vitality of the Town Centre.
Paragraph 206 of the NPPF is clear “Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.” Policy ENV5 does not make it clear which elements of the setting of heritage assets are the most important, leaving this all down to interpretation. Given that this is the main policy with regards to protection of heritage assets, it is clear that the purpose of the policy is to make development which is located near or next to heritage assets more difficult, without having a clear, concise and positively prepared policy which is contrary to the NPPF. Unless the policy is able to be applied in a flexible holistic approach, it will not aid in the redevelopment of urban, brownfield land.
This is a direct contradiction to what the DBCP is trying to achieve overall, and which Walsall Town Centre sites should be actively supporting in accordance with the NPPF.